January 28, 2012

Brokaw — who wants the ad withdrawn — says: "I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do no want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign."

Extended use? The ad is 30 seconds long. And how does it "compromise" Brokaw's role as a journalist? Anyone can see it's the archival footage of the news from 1997, and the point of using Brokaw is that it makes it plain that this is the straightforward news of that time, not any pumped up, slanted presentation.

Unless...

... unless — ironically! — Tom Brokaw's role as a journalist is already — in the minds of viewers — compromised. I mean, when you look at this ad, do you think: Oh, there's that terrible left-leaning NBC News making what Gingrich did look as bad as possible? Or do you think: That's the regular, professional news as it appeared in 1997, informing us of some disturbingly bad things Gingrich did?

Obviously, Mitt Romney is using the clip on the theory that you'll think the latter, and therefore it boosts Brokaw's reputation as a neutral journalist. Brokaw's objection is self-undermining.

See now, I've got no memory of 1997. In 1997 I had four children under the age of six. Nothing happened in the world that didn't include diapers, and no reason to put the diapers in permanent memory, so no memory.

So what did Gingrich do? Is this the scandal about him teaching a History class that the IRS later decided had nothing to do with politics so he didn't do anything wrong?

When Newt was running in 1998, he had the speech in campaigns for all House members. He said: I (he, that is) will use Clinton's affairs at every chance he got in every speech. Now, when people talk about his three wives, he blows up by going nuclear.

This man is sick. He is a fraud. I wish there was a journalist in America that in a debate took him apart: "You, Mr. Gingrich, are not only a shameless but a serial hypocrite. God help us should you win the nomination."

I think that Ann's link is screwed up - I got a video about boots and cats. Had to go through the linked Politico article to see the Romney/Gingrich/Brokaw ad.

Sorry Tom. If this were business, instead of politics, you might be able to win on a theory of appropriating your likeness or personality, or, maybe some sort of false attribution. But, its politics, and those rules are pretty much out the window. Otherwise, half the political ads would be actionable.

My view is that if Brokaw doesn't want this sort of thing, he shouldn't have been so obviously biased in his "news" reporting.

Now, I do have empathy for Gingrich here - he got hit with well over a hundred ethics complaints by Democrats trying to take him down, and the few that were found to be somewhat sketchy were fairly minor, in comparison with much of what goes on in Congress - just think of what the Republicans could do with Nancy Pelosi - including insider trading, lobbying for her family, etc. Or, how about Barney Frank or Chris Dodd (backers of Freddie and Fannie, and then architects of the "reforms" that essentially exempted the large financial institutions that caused the meltdown)?

This has become a favorite trick of the Democrats, as evidenced by their attempt to wreck similar havoc with Sarah Palin.

Keep in mind, that if Gingrich gets the nomination, Brokaw would be more than happy if the Obama campaign ran this ad back-to-back for the entire election season. Brokaw intended to harm Gingrich, and this ad is doing that - he just wants to control who gets to do the damage, and that doesn't include Republicans.

Agree about the tin ear comment. One thing that unites the right is that we despise the MSM. I have not watched the MSM news in many years. Brokaw has zero credibility with the GOP voter.

Romney should stick to the facts, especially quotes from Newt and factual recounts of what he did. Hoist him by his own petard. There is a huge amount of material, it is counter productive to involve the MSM.

My main worries about Romney are that:* he is out of touch with the current thinking of conservatives* that he is too slow to react to political reality and not very politically adept* that he will be too nice on the campaign trail

When Mitt efficiently and relentlessly attacks Newt, it actually reassures me and assuages a couple of my biggest worries about Mitt.

In the general election, use of MSM footage might be effective in persuading indy voters.

This is what worries me about Romney, he simply cannot run a classy PRIMARY campaign. If he was slinging this mud against Obama - I wouldn't care. But why is he tossing this personal stuff against his fellow Republicans all time? Run on the freakin' issues and stop attacking Gingrich's personality or ethics.

This is why McCain and Huckabee hated Romney's guts in 2008. Its why the Huckster -instead of dropping out and supporting Romney (when McCain could still be stopped)- stayed in and basically gave it to McCain.

I wonder what Romney is going to be like as POTUS. Did he get along with his fellow Republicans when he was governor?

Brokaw's position is outrageous. I hold him in high regard even though he's a reflexive lefty, but this diminishes my regard for him. He's confused his role as a news reporter with that of a news maker -- worse, some sort of celebrity news maker who's entitled to manage and control and collect rents for the use of his image.

Searching the archives for what happens when Tom is uncomfortable, I came across this..

Did anyone else catch the "Today" show last year at some point when Tom Brokaw was filling in for Matt Lauer? It was his last day of co-hosting, and one of the cast, Ann Curry, I believe, asked him what it was like getting up so early in the morning for work again. The exchange went something like this:

TOM: Well, I was driving through the darkened streets of the city this morning, and around Wall Street and that area, I saw the homeless people in cardboard boxes and in doorways.

(Ann, Katie and Al look on with those mock-empathy looks that anchors get)

TOM: And then I thought to myself, "Well, at least they don't have to get up and go to work!"

(Horrified looks from the gang, who can't seem to believe he just said that, followed by a quick change of topic).

After an exhaustive near sisyphean experiment.. where no expense was spared..

..here are my results(extra credits)

"Nancy Pelosi came to power"About 2,860 [Google] results

"Newt Gingrich came to power"About 11,200 [Google] results

Despite the time differential between the two speakerships, that should in principle favor Pelosi being written about more.. considering the Net was only an infant during Newts reign.. It is Newt who has been so distinguished with such high praise as to note his ascension to power many times more than Pelosi.. and despite Pelosi being the first woman.

I've heard from Mark Levin the ethics charges were completely bogus, including dozens of ethics charges. Finally one charge stuck because Newt had no money left to fight them, and encourage republicans to vote in favor of the violation to get it over with and move on with business. Given Mark Levin actually worked on these charges at the time, it seems he ought to know.

Now, I don't know, but if that's actually correct, how does that make you feel about Romney? It reminds me of the tactics of another man, who now resides in the oval office.

Newt paid a $300,000 fine for those ethics violations. Politifact reports:"On Jan. 17, 1997, the full committee held nearly six hours of televised hearings, then voted 7 to 1 to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation. The full House went on to pass the ethics report 395 to 28, with 196 Republicans voting for it and 26 voting against it."

Obviously Romney has to remind voters of this, it is part of Newt's record. Anything Newt has said or done that reflects poorly on Newt is going to be brought up. It is due diligence and it is exactly what Mitt should be doing to Newt.

"But he can show a clip of Brokaw and just let it stand. That way he's not telling the lie, he's just showing something Brokaw said."

That's not very different from Newt's unapologetic justification for the deceptive Bain attacks & Bain movie:

It's just "vetting", a necessary part of the primary process. This stuff is out there; it will come out in the general & be used by Obama-- better get it out there now, see how the candidate fares against it. Whatever the truth is, the perception of an ethical lapse (e.g. Romney's evil Gordon-Gekkoesque vulture capitalism) will be a real factor in the general election.

IMO, using an undoctored clip from an actual news broadcast and letting that "stand" seems more kosher to me than a mendacious Michael-Moore style "documentary" filled with misinformation.

Not defending this ad per se; just not shedding any tears for Newt here.